Abstract:(1) Background: Various guidelines address patient preparation and its importance for venous blood sampling, such as the GP41 guideline issued by the Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and the blood collection guidelines published by the World Health Organisation. Recommendations provided by national societies or international organisations in the field of radiology, such as The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology, or in the field of laboratory medicine, such as the Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and the Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin American Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI), also guide this practice. There is a notable lack of understanding regarding the viewpoints held by non-laboratory healthcare professionals concerning the significance of patient preparation for laboratory testing and the impact of typical factors associated with patient preparation. This study endeavours to bridge this gap by assessing the attitude of non-laboratory healthcare professionals in Lithuania regarding these pivotal aspects. (2) Methods: A self-designed anonymous questionnaire was disseminated among 141 public healthcare institutions in Lithuania. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was evaluated by computing Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive statistics were utilised for the variables, while comparisons of attitude among groups were conducted using Mann–Whitney U (for two groups) or Kruskal–Wallis (for more than two groups) for categorical and discrete indicators. The Kruskal–Wallis post-hoc test was employed for pairwise comparisons. A significance level of p-Value < 0.05 was applied to establish statistical significance. (3) Results: A total of 158 respondents constituted two distinct groups of healthcare professionals: nurses and physicians. Most of the participants either agreed or strongly agreed that patient preparation could introduce bias into laboratory test results. Professionals with less than 20 years of work experience or those who attended training in patient preparation for sampling within a 5-year timeframe exhibited stronger agreement regarding different preanalytical factors in patient preparation and their impact on laboratory test results compared to their counterparts. (4) Conclusions: Non-laboratory healthcare professionals who participated in this survey consider proper patient preparation for laboratory testing to be a significant step towards obtaining accurate test results. They also recognize the commonly acknowledged preanalytical factors as important for ensuring reliable test results. However, attitudes towards the importance of several preanalytical factors vary depending on whether non-laboratory healthcare professionals have more or less than 20 years of work experience, as well as whether they have attended any training on this topic within the last five years or have never attended such training.

What People Know vs. What They Should Know About Laboratory Reference Ranges

A Comparison of Websites Offering Laboratory Test Information Targeted to Citizens

The Role and Limitations of the Reference Interval Within Clinical Chemistry and Its Reliability for Disease Detection

Numbers, graphs and words - do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals?

Benchmarking medical laboratory performance on a global scale

Regression-based rectangular tolerance regions as reference regions in laboratory medicine

Tabular, Annotated, Visual, or Trends + Contextual Information? Preferences for Online Laboratory Results Displays

Sharing reference intervals and monitoring patients across laboratories – findings from a likely commutable external quality assurance program

Clinical Decision-Making Suffers from Inequivalent Measurement Results and Inadequate Reference Intervals

Unpacking the Use of Laboratory Test Results in an Online Health Community throughout the Medical Care Trajectory

Survey on common reference intervals for general chemistry analytes in Hong Kong

Assessing Non-Laboratory Healthcare Professionals' Attitude towards the Importance of Patient Preparation for Laboratory Tests

Critical Results in Laboratory Medicine

People do not have high levels of knowledge of low dose ionizing radiation (LDIR)

The Biggest Struggle: Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation

Public knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 serological and viral lineage laboratory testing and result interpretation: A GENCOV study cross-sectional survey

Contextualizing Online Laboratory (lab) Results and Mapping the Patient Journey

Establishment of Reference Intervals of Ten Commonly Used Clinical Chemistry Analytes: a Real-World Study in China.

[Usability of the Laboratory Report and Knowledge of Lipid-Lowering in Out-Patients from Dyslipidemia-Related Departments].

What do patients and the public know about clinical practice guidelines and what do they want from them? A qualitative study

A content analysis of the consumer-facing online information about My Health Record: Implications for increasing knowledge and awareness to facilitate uptake and use